To
declare indicted for the crime of misuse of public funds, in the
terms that have been expressed in the previous legal foundations,
Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Oriol Junqueras i Vies, Jordi Turull i
Negre, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Meritxell Borràs i Solé, Clara Ponsatí
i Obiols, Antoni Comín i Oliveres, Joaquim Forn i Chiariello, Josep
Rull i Andreu, Lluís Puig i Gordi, Carles Mundó i Blanch, Dolors
Bassa i Coll, Santiago Vila i Vicente and Meritxell Serret i Aleu.

The
precautionary measure of provisional imprisonment, communicated and
without bail, of Oriol Junqueras i Vies, Joaquim Forn i
Chiariello, Jordi Sánchez Picanyol and Jordi Cuixart Navarro is
maintained, and is resolved in the same form expressed in the
petition for freedom filed by this last defendant in his text of
March 1, 2018.

The
amount of 2,135,948.6 euros, which shall be jointly and severally
provided by the defendants Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Oriol
Junqueras i Vies, Jordi Turull i Negre, Raül Romeva i Rueda,
Meritxell Borràs i Solé, Clara Ponsati i
Obiols, Antoni Comín i Oliveres, Joaquim Forn i Chiariello, Josep Rull
i Andreu, Lluís Puig i Gordi, Carles Mundó i Blanch, Dolors Bassa i
Coll, Santiago Vila i Vicente and Meritxell Serret i Aleu, is set as
the new amount of the bond in guarantee of the pecuniary liabilities
that may arise from the present proceeding.

The
aforementioned defendants are to be summoned to appear for an
exploratory
statement before this Court on April 16, 17 and 18, 2018, at 10.00
a.m.,
and they are to appear with counsel defending them. In a separate
resolution, the day that each of the defendants has to appear will be
indicated.

The
historical-criminal records of those defendants are to be requested."

SECOND.-
The hearing provided for in article 505 of the Criminal Procedure Law
was held today in regard to Carme Forcadell i
Lluís, Jordi Turull i Negre, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Josep Rull i
Andreu and Dolors Bassa i Coll, during which the Public Prosecutor's
Office, the State's legal counsel and the Popular Action call for
provisional imprisonment,
communicated and without bail, of the aforementioned, in addition to
that of Marta Rovira i Vergés, who has neither appeared nor alleged
a legitimate cause of her failure to appear. And the lawyers of the
defendants present request that the current personal measures of
their defendants be maintained.

LEGAL
BASES

FIRST.-
As has already been expressed in previous resolutions, it is
constitutional doctrine reflected in Article 503 of the Criminal
Procedure Act, that the constitutional legitimacy of provisional
detention, as a precautionary measure restricting the right to
liberty in criminal proceedings, requires not only that there is a
supposition of the existence of rational indications of the
commission of a crime, but also that there is a risk that some of the
essential purposes of the criminal process might be

foiled
as a consequence of judicial inactivity in this case.

The
following are thus recognized as ends that can constitutionally
legitimize provisional imprisonment:
to avert the risk that the defendant might escape the action of
justice were he/she to continue in freedom; that in the same
situation he/she might proceed to conceal, alter or destroy evidence
sources that could be relevant for the prosecution; as well as the
cases in which it can be reasonably foreseen that if the defendant
remained free, he/she could act against the legal rights of the
victim or, finally, that he/she might repeat his/her criminal
behaviour.

SECOND.-
Inasmuch as this ruling complements the indictment of March 21, 2018,
there is no need to incorporate into this document the deeds
attributed to the defendants and the signs that the investigation
records on their participation in them.

After
practising the appearance provided for in Article
505 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Public Prosecutor's Office,
the State's legal counsel and the private prosecutors have called for
the stiffening of the precautionary measures previously decreed
against Carme Forcadell i
Lluís, Jordi Turull i
Negre, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Josep Rull i Andreu and Dolors Bassa i
Coll, and specifically demand the replacement of the measure granting
freedom on bail, by provisional detention, communicated and without
bail. They state, to support their claim that, alongside a risk of
risk of criminal repetition, there is a marked risk of flight in all
of them.

Their
claim is shared by this investigating judge.

THIRD.-
As already stated in the indictment regarding the other defendants
who were being held in provisional detention and who have been
prosecuted as alleged perpetrators of a crime of rebellion, the
attribution of responsibilities is made when the bulk of the
investigation has been completed. The suspicions that emerged as a
basis for the initiation of the procedure,
as well as for the adoption of precautionary measures at that time,
are today rational and firm signs of the possible perpetration of
deeds that present a certain criminal consideration and of the
participation that the defendants may have had in them.

At
such a juncture, there is a serious risk of the defendants' flight
due to the severe punishment they face for their possible criminal
responsibility for rebellion.

As
has already been stated in other decisions, the
constitutional doctrine (Constitutional
Court Judgments No.
128/1995, of June 26; No.
47/2000,
of February 17; or No.
23/2002,
of January 28) provides that the outstanding seriousness of the crime
and of the punishment in evaluating risks of flight - and with it, of
the Administration of Justice's action being foiled - is undeniable,
both by the fact that the greater the severity of the crime, the more
intense the temptation to the flight, and by the fact that the
greater the importance of the deed the lack of prosecution of which
is feared, the greater will be the harm that, should the flight take
place, the ends pursued by justice would suffer.
This reality has today been materialized as regards one of the
defendants, who has not attended the summons of this Court.

The
defendants present state that their very
appearance before the
Court only goes to
refute the contrary position
that is
being tried
to conjure
up, and that a
resolution cannot be adopted on the basis of the procedural behaviour
that may have been adopted by other defendants. The argument is
reasonable. The consideration of the risk of escape of the defendants
must be made by analysing the personal circumstances that affect
them, and these are headed by the fact they have appeared before this
instructor every time they have been summoned.

Regrettably,
it is impossible to perceive what the internal will of the defendants
may be, for which reason a series of external elements must be drawn
upon to construct a reasonable judgment of prognosis, and not only as
regards their present will, but also as
regards the possibility
that this might change as
the case
itself develops. And given this consideration, the truth is that the
indictment that hangs over the defendants has
not been made hastily;
it is a response to the sources of evidence that have been gathered
during the procedure, that point to an exceptionally striking crime
that is linked to a penalty of unquestionable rigour. This provides a
first objective assessment parameter, which is that the temptation to
flee when faced with an onerous punishment increases as does the
legal and temporal proximity of being liable to suffer its
consequences.

Be
that is it may, and as also
stated in the
indictment, the risk is enhanced by the concurrence of two other
factors:

In
the first place, though it is true that the defendants whose
situation is being analysed
have appeared before the Court when they have been summoned,
the investigation has also reflected their clear insurrection against
the decisions of court authority, which they have neglected in a
consistent and systematic manner in recent years. This finding
coexisted with the conviction that there were reasons that gave them
legitimacy to resist compliance with court decisions. And since those
arguments are the very
ones that lead them to believe that they have not committed any
crime, as they said this morning, it can be concluded that there is
no discernable element in their internal psychological sphere that
allows one to discern that respect for the decisions of this
investigator will be permanent, neither for their general
consideration of the role of the courts, nor because they accept the
alleged illegality of the conduct that determines the restriction of
their rights. In fact, compliance with this court's decision will
occur as long as their will does not change, as has already happened
today with another of the defendants. Even more so when the loss of
the personal guarantee provided would not entail a burden for their
own assets, as it arose from collective solidarity.

Finally,
the motivations that impelled the defendants to commit the alleged
crimes attributed to them are shared by a large group that
sympathizes with their cause. And this group - as has already been
said in the indictment - has organized associative structures,
specialized legal advice,
significant economic resources derived from its members'
contributions, as well as an international structure developed in
recent years to defend its position and, therefore, ready to provide
effective support.

FOURTH.-
There is also a marked risk of criminal recidivism.

Notwithstanding
the fact that some of the defendants have resigned their
parliamentary seats
(Dolors Bassa i Coll, as well as Carmen Forcadell i
Lluís),
they have all shared the determination to achieve the independence of
a part of the national territory. And one cannot fail to note that
the aspiration, in itself legitimate, has been sought to be achieved
through instruments of action that violate the prohibitive criminal
norms and with the support of a large-scale social, administrative
and political movement.

At
such a juncture, resigning a parliamentary seat does not remove
the possibility of persisting in the determination to promote the
objectives without respecting criminal norms, nor does it exclude the
defendants from making contributions to that intention through very
diverse collaborations and all of them different from parliamentary
activity.

Above
and beyond
the people who have been prosecuted before this Court, the
investigation shows that many subjects reached
agreement
to break the constitutional and criminal order as a result of the
criminal accord
being investigated. All of them have intervened from multiple facets
of collaboration, even though their participation is subject to
investigation by other judicial bodies.

If
we add to this plurality of levels of action, as also indicated in
the indictment, the fact that the intent to which they were
incorporated from the beginning planned (White Paper) to continue
with the illicit action as soon as the regional institutions that
might have been intervened were recovered, it can be concluded that
the risk of recidivism
exists despite the resignation of the parliamentary seat.

The
White Paper said "Even
in the extreme case of self-government being suspended, this
suspension could not be indefinite and far
less definitive, and the popular will and the institutional will
could therefore continue to be displayed once the self-government and
ordinary functioning of the institutions were
restored".
The performance of recent months does not allow us to obtain the
conviction that some participants have
abandoned the intention of
returning
to the abnormal functioning of the institutions and, given
this
risk has
not been
averted,
nor has
the possibility of providing collaboration from areas different from
that of Parliament, as already happened with regard
to one of the defendants, Carme Forcadell, bearing in mind she began
to carry out these deeds as
president of the pro-sovereignty organisation ANC, and continued as
Speaker
of the Parliament of Catalonia afterwards. The precautionary measure
thus guarantees the correct return of self-government.

SIXTH.-
As regards the material impossibility of Jordi Turull i Negre, as
well as the rest of the members of parliament, of going to perform
their parliamentary functions and participating in the investiture
session scheduled for tomorrow, in response to the precautionary
measure now being adopted, considering that his legal counsel
refers to the reasons developed on the occasion of a similar motion
arising from other defendants in this case, suffice it to recall what
was decided in those cases.

Article
23.1 of the Spanish Constitution lays
down that "Citizens
have the right to participate in public affairs, directly or through
representatives freely elected in periodic elections by universal
suffrage."
Para 2 adds that "They
also have the right to accede under conditions of equality to public
functions and positions, in accordance with the requirements laid
down by the law".

As
stated in the aforementioned resolutions, the assessment of the
material content of the right to access public functions and
positions, specifies that the right does not end with access, but
extends and broadens to include the exercise of the representative
function (Constitutional
Court Judgments
32/1985, of March 6, 220/1991, of November 25 (Legal
Basis
5); 71/1994, of March 3 (Legal
Basis
6); 109/2016, of June 7 (Legal
Basis
3 a); 11/2017, of January 10 (Legal
Basis
3 a) and 139/2017, of November 29.

This
does not mean that its limitation is inadmissible when it is founded
on other constitutionally legitimate purposes that present a
reasonable correspondence in their intensity, since, as already
stated by the Constitutional Court in assessing the scope of Article
23.2 of the EC in Judgment No.
71/1994, of March 3 (with quote from Constitutional Court Judgment
No.
25/1981): "This
limitation or suspension of fundamental rights in a democracy, is
justified only for the defence of one's fundamental rights when
certain actions, on the one hand, limit or actually impede their
exercise as subjective rights for the majority of citizens, and, on
the other hand, they jeopardize the objective order of the national
community, that is, the democratic State".
A requirement of adequate correspondence between the limitation
imposed on the right and the legal rights that are sought to be
protected, which has been recognized by the ECHR, in its judgment of
the Grand Chamber of October 6, 2015 in the case of Thierry Delvigne
v. France, also contemplating the gravity
of the crimes to which the restriction is associated.

In
other words, though any citizen has the right to opt for a democratic
and representative investiture, this faculty does not deactivate the
courts' duty to ensure that the exercise of the right by those to
whom a serious criminal act is attributed does not put at risk powers
of greater importance and in greater need of protection.

The
gravity of the deeds that the indictment describes, the use of the
institutions for its execution, the anticipation of resuming the
action contained in the White Paper and that the defendants maintain
according to their general statements in the long period
that has preceded the investiture, determine that their political
rights do not have pre-eminence and a greater need for protection
than the rights that this ruling preserves.